FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[mnmracer]

I must have missed your explanation - would you mind repeating it?

"better car+better driver+better tires+handicapped front wing" does not seem like an unreasonable explanation for 10 faster laps.

So from Italy to Singapore the 2.5 seconds was a combination of the car being improved, Seb suddenly got better and the tires improved ?

*******, if you don't want to discuss this, ** ** *** *** *** ************ ** *** ***** ************ **** **** *** **** ********** ****** *** **** ****** ******, you can just say so. **** ******** ****** *** ** ******** **********.

You keep completely ignoring the handicapped front wing as a whole, **** ******** ****** *** ** ******** ********** **** ******** ****** *** ** ******** **********.

Or are you next going to claim that Rosberg had no problems with his front wing?
Or are you next going to claim that Vettel was 2 seconds faster for the entire race?

Edited to remove abusive content - and as a likely precursor to a fishing trip

[LRW]

Maybe this thread should be locked too.

Another decent topic turned into a circular argument, going nowhere.

Common denominator...?

[What's Burning?]

More loopy than circular.

[mnmracer]

it's only circular because the one branch out is completely ignored as if non-existent.

[LRW]

it's only circular because the one branch out is completely ignored as if non-existent.

Yes Mnm - that is correct. You have the only one true meaningful opinion in this thread, and the rest of us are just cra cra.

We are so lucky to have you.

[Hammer278]

Lol I can't believe he changed his signature to someone agreeing with him I mean

[mnmracer]

it's only circular because the one branch out is completely ignored as if non-existent.

Yes Mnm - that is correct. You have the only one true meaningful opinion in this thread, and the rest of us are just cra cra.

We are so lucky to have you.

That's not what I am saying.
I am saying there is a perfectly valid argument on the table that is being completely ignored, nor invalidated (before you suggest that).
If you want a quality discussion, you address the elements of that discussion, not conveniently ignore it and act puzzled why it doesn't line up.

[CookinFlat6]

Funny how the same circular then abusive then locked and bans pattern can be found on Autosport and pf1, common denominator? Lowest?

[mnmracer]

Funny how the same circular then abusive then locked and bans pattern can be found on Autosport and pf1, common denominator? Lowest?

Funny how they all involve arguments based on non-facts and exclusion of facts.

[1Lemon]

Just noticed you are using my quote as your sig. I thought you were just posting it every time you made a post

[1Lemon]

All these people shouting about Morality in Formula 1 must be not paying much attention to the sport, it's not a moral sport at all. It's about politics, dirty undercutting, back room deals, crazy engineering and design that makes Boeing feel jealous and finally hard racing.

Morality has never had anything to do with F1 throughout it's entire history and it's why we love it.

Murder and assasinations have figured in politics for centuries. Should we then accept it as fine and not shout when it occurs?

You are starting to muddle your beliefs and angst like your new best friend

No one is going out to kill others in F1 though, it's not that extreme. It is and always have been part of the sport, it's part of every motor sports; and it gives us something to talk about.

Red Bulls car has something, something that suits Vettel, something that gives him an edge, but they are in no way obliged to hand it over and shouldn't.

[What's Burning?]

I must have missed your explanation - would you mind repeating it?

"better car+better driver+better tires+handicapped front wing" does not seem like an unreasonable explanation for 10 faster laps.

So from Italy to Singapore the 2.5 seconds was a combination of the car being improved, Seb suddenly got better and the tires improved ?

*******, if you don't want to discuss this, ** ** *** *** *** ************ ** *** ***** ************ **** **** *** **** ********** ****** *** **** ****** ******, you can just say so. **** ******** ****** *** ** ******** **********.

You keep completely ignoring the handicapped front wing as a whole, **** ******** ****** *** ** ******** ********** **** ******** ****** *** ** ******** **********.

Or are you next going to claim that Rosberg had no problems with his front wing?
Or are you next going to claim that Vettel was 2 seconds faster for the entire race?

Edited to remove abusive content - and as a likely precursor to a fishing trip

For someone so grounded in fact, you sure have a tendency to ignore the obvious ones when they're not supportive of your claims. The Rosberg wing issue had nothing to do with the claims being made. The gap of 32 seconds in the last 11 laps was to Alsonso, but you keep trying to cloud the argument with nonsensical rationalizations to ignore the one thing that's being challenged. The sound, and the ability of a car to pick up 32 seconds with 11 laps lefts of racing, not to Nico, but to Alonso, the 2nd placed car.

Why would you even bring up Nico's wing? Why not look at what's being challenged that 32 seconds gained over 11 laps to a car that was 1 second slower a lap in qualifying trim, but that always improves massively in race trim? That's a physical impossibility, that's what's being questioned, not that there's a two second gap tot he Marrussia which is an infantile argument to make, you like facts ONLY when they support your point of view, don't hide behind callous personal attacks when the facts don't support you, at least have the "morality" to admit that it's JUST your fanatical opinion and not try to pass it off as the rule of the sport and then be hypocritical enough to challenge others with doing what you're masterful at.

Get off it, you're looking awfully foolish.

[mnmracer]

Alonso

Taking Alonso makes it even more foolish...
Alonso was trying to do 35 laps on his tires, Vettel was not conserving his tires. That's how a 2-stop vs a 3-stop (when correctly executed) works: by setting faster laps to overcome the time difference of that extra pit stop.

[What's Burning?]

Alonso

Taking Alonso makes it even more foolish...
Alonso was trying to do 35 laps on his tires, Vettel was not conserving his tires. That's how a 2-stop vs a 3-stop (when correctly executed) works: by setting faster laps to overcome the time difference of that extra pit stop.

Half of which were during a safety car. It's next to impossible to pass in Singapore, even with poor tires, and the circuit wasn't particularly hard on the rubber. Vettel was not on fresh rubber either, nearly three seconds a lap, that's realistic for you, great. Enjoy having an F1 deity.

To the rest of the world it looks. AND SOUNDS... a lot like Vettel was using a very much illegal traction control device. Have you addressed the sound yet, wait no you haven't because that's an inconvenient fact and that's your modus operandi isn't it.

It's the last I post on this topic.

[mnmracer]

Half of which were during a safety car.

Which is a false statement.
5 out of those 35 laps were behind the SC.

To the rest of the world

except half of the paddock, including our all precious Fernando Alonso

SOUNDS... a lot like Vettel was using a very much illegal traction control device.

It sounded exactly like the McLarens in Korea last year, which was also in no way, shape or form TC.
The paddock as a collective remembers that kind of thing, rather than act like it never happened.